Will Reason Win The Day?

I am been honored with a link from His Royal Shamus. I noticed that both his introduction and his commenters allude to the two major schools of thought on Arguing With Leftists: those that believe it is worth the effort, and those that believe it is pointless.

Who is correct? I have wrestled with this conundrum since I started blogging. Mostly, the arguments seem like an exercise in futility, and yet I persist in doing it. “Why do I bother?” I ask myself after a particularly pointless debate.

Then, I do it again. It’s a compulsion, born of . . . what? Adherence to the Golden Rule? Hope springing eternal? Sheer hard-headedness? (Don’t ask my husband to answer that question, please.)

Then I read the W.O.R.M.’s post, “Depth of data reveals the pivotal question.” It doesn’t sound related, but it is. With this short post the W.O.R.M has, once again, pierced through my intellectual dilemma with white beaming rays of rationality:

“Social pressures trump rational arguments for almost everyone in almost everything. It’s why I had no hope, after Obama’s election, that America’s decline could be reversed. But he hastened that decline so much that millions noticed at the same time. Instant Tea Parties. This ‘W.O.R.M.’ freely acknowledges being caught by surprise. And feeling a bit of hope. Depth of data lets me know precisely what this conflict hinges on. It’s the social war. This isn’t a battle of reason. There is no rational war. The Tea Partiers are right and the Establishment is wrong.

Everyone knows it. It’s why the left vomits insults and lies and hatred upon peaceful and patriotic Americans. That’s all it has. Social pressure. ‘Do what I want or I’ll call you names.’ The Establishment is a ten-year old drama queen.”

He’s right. Arguing with a leftist is pointless because they are not interested in facts or reason. They are interested in applying social pressure (racist! ignorant! tribal! fearful! greedy! gullible!).

Ahhh, BUT.

Armed with the W.O.R.M.’s added clarity, I figured it out. The argument is pointless, but only if your goal is to convince the other person that you are right and they are wrong.

I’ve been arguing for other reasons entirely.

The first reason is also the impetus for starting my own blog: to defend myself and my peers. I do not relish the debate. I actually hate conflict of any sort. I’m a compromiser, a harmonizer, a get-along-gal by nature. Yet, after countless articles and news segments insulted us Tea Party protesters, I had to stand up and give a voice to the unrecognized, unimportant Every Man within “the rabble.” Not to convince, but for the peace of mind that comes with saying your piece.

The second reason: to be the example which disproves the accusations. To prove that the tolerant, level-headed, gentle, generous, rational, unafraid, and even lighthearted conservative actually exists. Shoot. My very existence should counter just about every slam the left has puked up. The person arguing with me won’t see it, or at least won’t admit it. What about third-party readers, though? I’d like to think that some random surfer dropped by and thought: that Tea Partier sounded pretty reasonable to me . . .

The third reason is the also funnest reason: just to annoy them. The left has gotten pretty dang used to running the show unopposed, wouldn’t you say? They need poking! It’s both easy and fun to remind them that the crowds they so swiftly deride and dismiss are composed of living, breathing, feeling, and–gasp!–thinking human beings. Like me! Basically, every last one of my arguments can be boiled down to this: “Hello, I’m the one you hate so much. Why all the hate?”

They really hate being confronted with that question. As a result of confrontation, some of them will pause next time they slam the Tea Party, and phrase their argument a little less sweepingly. Not because they are convinced, but just because they’ve been confronted. Confrontation causes hesitation. Some of them won’t discuss the Tea Party as often anymore. Some will do their spamming anonymously from here on out. At the very least, all of them will be annoyed.

And you do know the most important thing of all, don’t you? Any time a member of the collectivist left is annoyed by a reasoned argument, an angel gets his wings.

Post navigation

20 thoughts on “Will Reason Win The Day?”

Excellent post. I prefer the third reason myself. There is something to be said about being the itch the left can’t scratch, even with the biggest stick they possess, racism.

Thank you for the link. =) Reason lost out in that argument, but only because the Good Jester James truly is an imbecile. He was completely incapable of forming a cogent argument which speaks volumes to the value of a degree in journalism.

Thanks, dude. I keep pinging ya lately, huh? Like a pestering sister. I really do believe that the next time that guy wants to “cut and paste” some spam, he will do it anonymously to avoid getting PWND, or whatever the gamers call it.

I actually hate conflict of any sort. I’m a compromiser, a harmonizer, a get-along-gal by nature. Yet, after countless articles and news segments insulted us Tea Party protesters, I had to stand up and give a voice to the unrecognized, unimportant Every Man within ”the rabble.”

We are very much alike indeed. I hate politics, and I hate conflict…yet, I’m compulsively drawn to defending liberty even in the face of certain doom.

Is there a God? Does He insert people like ourselves into the mix when needed, and compel us to do what’s right even when it would be 100 times easier to just go with the flow?

I’m beginning to wonder. Because there seems to be no rational explanation for why we freedom fighters continue to beat our heads against the statist wall. Yet, we continue to do so–hopefully to the benefit of humanity as a whole.

I dunno…the philosophers can ponder that question. I’m just a jerk with a blog. (shrug)

Ah well, then we are both jerks with blogs. Regardless of our beliefs, we recognize the truth of this nation’s current situation. We feel compelled to try and correct it. That must be a good thing. Personally, I feel a great freedom in putting the whole mess in God’s hands, and just resigning myself to John the Baptist’s role. I love truth, but I don’t want to be in charge. Don’t make me ponder further, as I am no philosopher . . .

I find your analysis very intriguing and thought provoking. One of the main reasons the left as been able to advance their message and agenda is because for the longest time it was the only message being pushed. Quiet live and let live conservatives kept to themselves while the left built coalitions of power in the shadows. Our message was lost because we didn’t advance it. Their message was pushed because we didn’t challenge it. Excellent post Linda. I added you to my blogroll.

Great Post.
Very simply, intuition breeds common sense.
Even people throughout history that were illiterate had common sense.
Daniel Boone was illiterate, but he had a lot of common sense.
It will be interesting to watch the desperate socialistic administration dance through the disregard of our policies by Asia, and the EU.
The news is the news, right ?
Yes it is, for the next 2 years.

Like you, I started doing this to defend myself. And I do find it a little amusing when I get under the skin of a lefty. Usually it is because they can’t counter the argument so they shout out names.
Great post!

Bob I used to believe those on the Left are insane until I could not square their behavior by just deciding insanity was the reason. I’ve come to see that Conservatives and liberals are very different in their perceptions of others; a Conservative see others as generally capable and, see them capable, are willing to hold them accountable. Notice that Conservative practices are typically geared toward the application of accountability i.e; pro-military, pro-law enforcement. Liberals see others exactly opposite, as incapable (think victims) and the practice of this belief is demonstrated through policies aimed at the avoidance of accountability. Make a list of Liberal policies and in every case you will see this practice in action. The anger you see from Liberals is based on their perception that some unwarranted accountability is being applied. The best example of this is the Left’s rabid protection of what they see as incapable special interest groups. Young black people aren’t capable of getting good grades in high school so they need affirmative action, Homosexuals can’t possibly change so we need gay marriage and women can’t really behave in a way that would prevent a pregnancy so we need to make abortion available. Maybe if as conservatives we would preface our arguments with; “Because I see Hispanics as fully capable of learning to speak English, I see no reason I should be required to “press one for English…” “What is it that you believe, that causes you to think Hispanics can’t learn English?”

Good point, John. My “insanity” remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I really don’t think you can talk sense to most of ‘em. They can’t argue facts, so they attack with epithets. And that includes people I’ve known for 40 years. Then there’s the hard core ideologues, who are interested only in establishing socialism. Can’t argue with them either, they ain’t gonna change. Like the Buddhists say, “Enlightenment will only come when one is ready to be enlightened.”

This is old, but I don’t care. Seriously, NoOne, were we separated at birth or something?
I have one other reason for engaging. Even though you won’t win over Kos, you might get some of the thoughtful and silent ones who just watch.